What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328986 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Highmountain Limited $206.48 immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5328986?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328986?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages, Healthy homes, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328986?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12797106-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328986 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Highmountain Limited $206.48 immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5328986?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328986?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages, Healthy homes, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328986?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12797106-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 109 Gardner Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328986 — Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Highmountain Limited $206.48 immediately calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 to Highmountain Limited immediately.
The tenant’s claims for door locks is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant represented himself. The landlord was represented by Mr Wang who introduced himself as the property manager.
The landlord on the tenancy agreement is Highmountain Limited. Mr Wang explained that he is the sole director of Highmountain Limited and that Highmountain Limited is a property management company. Mr. Wang said that it was he who signed the tenancy agreement.
The Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the RTA) defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy. I therefore determine that Mr Wang is the landlord for the purposes of this tenancy agreement.
This is a cross application.
The tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
There was some dispute as to when the tenancy began, but it is immaterial. The tenant says the tenancy began on the 26th of November 2022, and the landlord says the tenancy began on the 29th of November 2022. The parties agreed the tenancy ended on the 21st of September 2025. The Landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records and says that at the end of the tenancy the tenant owed $2,971.43 for rent arrears. The tenant does not dispute this. The amount is proved by consent.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claims the floors were not swept or mopped, the kitchen drawers were dirty, the rangehood filters were not cleaned, the kitchen cupboard had not been cleaned and there was a soot mark on an exterior wall by the front door from the tenant’s car.
The tenant says he did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy having conducted an exit clean himself. He accepts the premises were not spotless.
When I look at the photographs provided by the landlord and by the tenant, I consider that the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy on the whole. I consider the soot mark on the exterior wall, the rangehood filters and the kitchen cupboard that hadn't been cleaned, were the exceptions to the premises being reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is proved in part.
I make an award for cleaning based on the above. The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the tenant damaged three walls and one door in the house. Two of the damaged walls are in the lounge and one in the bedroom. The damaged door is in the bathroom. I do not consider the damage to be extensive. The tenant explained that the damage occurred when holes were accidentally made in the wall and then repaired and repainted, and where sticky hooks were pulled off the wall leaving marks which were then repaired and repainted. The tenant has made an honest attempt at the repairs and repaint but unfortunately the colour matching is poor and the landlord has had to repaint the walls.
The damage is careless damage and the claim is proved.
The landlord is claiming $1,250.00 for the repair and repaint. I must take into account betterment. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
The tenant says that at the beginning of the tenancy the walls were in a reasonable condition. The landlord is not sure of the condition of the walls at the beginning of the tenancy because he took over managing the property part way through the tenancy. I note that the tenancy lasted approximately three years and in the absence of better information, I can only determine that the walls had been painted at least a year or two prior to the tenancy beginning. I therefore determine that the walls would probably have needed repainting again in another three or four years and on that basis I'm making award of 50% of what the landlord is claiming for the painting and repairs.
The landlord is claiming $310.05 for damage to a sensor light. The tenant is prepared to pay for the damage to the sensor light, and on that basis I find the claim proved by consent.
The landlord did not pursue a claim of $264.50 for an electrician to inspect the sensor light prior to it being repaired.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant left some of his belongings outside the premises because he didn't have anywhere to put them or any means of taking them away. The landlord disposed of the belongings himself and is seeking $1,150.00 as compensation.
The belongings included a sofa, a chair, an office chair, a single bed, a dresser, a cupboard, a washing machine, and a few other items in relatively good condition.
I consider $1,150.00 an excessive amount for disposing of these items and I make an award of what I consider to be a reasonable amount in compensation. The amounts ordered are proved.
As already mentioned above, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The Tenant’s claims Breach of healthy homes standards, moisture ingress and drainage Electrical issues
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the premises with regard to the electrical wiring in the premises. The tenant says that in October 2024 he turned on a light switch in the bathroom and received an electrical shock. He says the light switch was spongy. He made a complaint to the landlord and the next day the bathroom switch was repaired.
The tenant says he complained about other switches and sockets in the premises which were also spongy and which buzzed and arced when he used them, and about lights which flickered. These were not fixed.
The landlord accepts that the tenant made a complaint, but says that despite his efforts he was unable to find an electrician to come and test the electrics properly and remedy the problem if one was found. The landlord says the lights were checked but they didn't flicker when they were checked.
The landlord raised an issue the tenant making it difficult to schedule a contractor to attend. In short, I do not accept this submission, but I deal with that further on in this decision.
I determine the landlord failing to maintain the electrics of the premises is proved.
I determine this on the basis that the tenant initially suffered an electric shock, and on the tenant’s information that from October 2024 until the end of the tenancy in September 2025, that is 11 months, the premises had spongy switches and sockets, occasional flickering lights, and light switches and sockets which buzzed and arced. Some of this it was accepted by the landlord and some of it was not accepted by the landlord on the basis that he hadn't experienced it. That is not to say that he disputed that it was true.
I find this claim is proved, and I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act in not maintaining the premises.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The duration of this aspect of failing to maintain is approximately 48 weeks. I consider the breach to be serious as the tenant suffered an injury, there were issues of safety to the premises, of genuine worry to the tenant as well as loss of amenity. I have made an award of general damages in respect of these issues.
I also make an award of exemplary damages to the tenant for this breach. Keys and window latches
The tenant claims the landlord did not replace keys that the tenant lost, and failed to repair windows when the latches broke.
The parties agree that at the beginning of the tenancy the landlord provided one key for the front door to the tenant. The tenant then lost this key and the landlord was unable to provide a replacement. The tenant replaced the locks for the premises at his own cost and got four new keys for the locks. Over the course of the tenancy the tenant also lost these four keys and was then unable to secure his unit.
The tenant is claiming the landlord should reimburse him for the cost of replacing the locks and he is seeking exemplary damages for the landlord not continuing to make the premises secure, despite the tenant losing the keys during the tenancy.
The RTA requires a tenant to return all keys to a premises at the end of the tenancy. This indicates that it is tenant who is responsible for the keys during the tenancy and if any are lost the landlord it's entitled to claim replacement cost against the tenant.
It follows that the responsibility for replacing keys lost by the tenant falls to the tenant. This claim is not proved.
The tenant claims that during the tenancy the two double-hung casement windows lost their latches and could no longer be secured. The tenant says that in December 2023 he advised the landlord the windows needed repairing. Until the end of the tenancy some 21 months later, the windows still had not been repaired. The tenant says this meant that anybody could enter his unit at will simply by lifting open the window and climbing in.
The landlord acknowledged that the windows had no latches and that the landlord had been advised of this. The landlord said the problem with repairing the windows was caused by the tenant failing to confirm a time for handyman to attend the premises.
The landlord’s procedure for addressing this maintenance issue was markedly different to how other maintenance issues were addressed. For electrical problems and some other issues which were considered urgent such as glass breaking and the roof leaking, the landlord would send a contractor the very next day.
However the landlord responded very differently to the complaint about the window latches. The landlord wanted the tenant to be present when the handyman attended so the tenant could explain what the problems were to the handyman.
The tenant was therefore asked to provide times when he would be available. After the tenant had provided these times, the landlord would check with their handyman, and if the handyman was available at these times, the landlord would return to the tenant and ask the tenant to confirm the time was still suitable to him. If the tenant then failed to respond quickly, the landlord would cancel the appointment with the handyman and ask the tenant to provide another possible time.
This meant a significant amount of time and to-ing and fro-ing between the tenant and the landlord passed without appointments for the contractors being confirmed. Eventually the tenant opted out of the process and the windows were never fixed.
The tenant said he did not wish to be present when the handyman attended. He also made the following points: a. The contractors that attended often did not speak sufficient English for him to be able to communicate with them in any case, b. On many occasions the landlord had been able to attend the very next day, so why not in this case also? c. At the time this occurred the tenant was involved in exams and study and didn't have time to meet a contractor on site, d. He considered he had done what was required by notifying the landlord of the problem and he found the landlord’s conduct frustrating to the point that he eventually lost his temper.
The landlord said that following an abusive e-mail from the tenant he considered it no longer necessary to remedy the window latches.
The RTA requires a landlord to maintain a premises in reasonable condition and section 48(2)(d) sets out a landlord’s right of entry for maintenance issues. That section requires a landlord to give a tenant 24 hours’ notice before attending for maintenance issues.
I am not persuaded by the landlord’s submission that the tenant obstructed the landlord from fixing the window latches. The responsibility for maintenance of a premises falls to a landlord, and this responsibility is not voided because a tenant doesn't confirm they are available to be present when a contractor attends.
This breach lasted a long time, and made the premises insecure. I consider this a significant loss of amenity to the tenant.
I am satisfied this claim is proved and I have awarded general damages in consideration of the loss of amenity to the tenant.
The RTA section 109(2)(b) limits exemplary damages for claims that arose more than 12 months prior to an application being made. Because this application was made on the 19th of August 2025 and the issue with the window latches arose in November or December 2023, I determine this claim is out of time for an award of exemplary damages. Moisture ingress and drainage
The tenant claims the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant claims that in March 2023 there was a severe storm which flooded the back area of the yard. The water then entered a gap around the concrete slab on which the unit sets, and this soaked the floorboards in bedroom one and the lounge.
The tenant produced photographs which show the space where he says the water entered under the floor, the backyard area in flood, and several photographs of floorboards that show the floor to be wet, and water seeping up around the floorboard joins when the tenant applied weight to them. The tenant says this was the only occasion that the water entered under the floor, but he says the floor in the first bedroom remained damp and cold to the touch until the end of the tenancy.
In response the landlord said that he contacted the owner about this, and the owner said that it was impossible for water to enter under the flooring because the unit sits on a concrete slab. The landlord also said in his opinion the floors were dry by the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said a second issue with moisture ingress occurred in October 2024 when he noticed a wall in the lounge was flaking and wavey. The tenant said he had worked as a roofer and he considered the wall was probably wet because there was a leak in the roof. He called the landlord immediately about the leak and the landlord sent a contractor who addressed the leaking roof. The tenant said that for the rest of the tenancy the wall didn't dry out.
I determine the landlord failed in their obligation to maintain the lounge inasmuch as there was dampness in the walls that wasn't rectified. There is no dispute there was a leak that either came from the roof or from somewhere else within the walls. I am persuaded the effects of this persisted well after the roof leak had apparently been addressed by the contractor.
A third issue regarding moisture ingress and drainage involved drainage from the bathroom and kitchen at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant says that in March 2023 they notified the landlord that water from the kitchen and bathroom drained very slowly. It wasn't until July 2023 that a contractor came and looked at the drains. The contractor discovered there was concrete in the drain that needed to be removed. He also recommended a drain layer be engaged to alter the drain design, and the landlord made arrangements.
Although the landlord addressed this issue, I consider four months to be too long a time. I considered the landlord breached their maintenance obligations under the RTA.
In this case I have determined on the information before me today that; a. The premises has an issue with drainage which allows water to enter under the floor when the backyard floods sufficiently and that this causes the floor to remain them damp, and b. The wall and the lounge remained damp for an extended period of time due to moisture ingress, and c. Drainage in the kitchen and bathroom was insufficient for a period of four months at the beginning of this tendency.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
The effect of these breaches on the tenant was that he lived in a premises that was unreasonably damp for an extended period of time and that he suffered some inconvenience due to the poor drainage in the utility areas of his unit. The tenant raised potential health issues as a result of the dampness but there is insufficient information for me to make a finding in favour of him on this point. Suffice it to say set health issues in connection with long term dampness are well documented.
I consider general damages in consideration of these breaches are warranted in this case.
Because these breaches were first discovered more than 12 months prior to the filing of this application, the tenant is also time-barred from exemplary damages on these claims.
Because both parties have been significantly successful with their claims, I let the costs of the filing fees fall where they lie.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328986 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 109 Gardner Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328986 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 109 Gardner Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management